tags: politics, federal budget, funding freeze, science funding, technology funding, McCain, Ike Brannon
United States Federal Budget Discretionary Spending.
I just learned that, according to Ike Brannon, an economist and senior policy adviser to presidential candidate, John McCain, all funding -- including funding for scientific research -- will be frozen for one year if McCain is voted into the White House.
"The purpose of the freeze is to evaluate each and every program, looking at which ones are worthwhile and which are a waste of taxpayer dollars," Brannon told the Task Force on the Future of American Innovation at a private meeting in Washington, D.C.
Unfortunately, this is in direct conflict with McCain's earlier statements regarding his position on funding for scientific research. When questioned about this change in McCain's policy, Brannon remained inflexible.
"[T]he freeze applies to the entire budget, most of which doesn't relate to science. He hopes to be able to find savings from earmarks, from unnecessary subsidies, and from other programs that could then be applied to research."
This is in stark contrast to the stated position for the Obama campaign, presented by Melody Barnes, Obama's senior domestic policy adviser.
"Senator Obama believes that we have to double scientific research funding, so that we can take advantage of the enormous talent in the United States, and we can regain our global competitive edge."
Considering that McCain is having difficulty in distinguishing his proposed policies from those of the current administration, his position only serves to reinforce Americans' perception that McCain's regressive policies towards funding scientific research and innovation will create yet more barriers to solving this country's numerous problems.
Ho-hum. So it goes.
Source
NewsGuide (quotes).
- Log in to post comments
The figure you use is only discretionary spending.
see for example http://www.facingup.org/why-it-matters/facts-figures
Of course it contradicts what McCain said previously.
It wouldn't be a McCain position if it wasn't a flip-flop.
A bit of a skewed way of looking at the statements given by Brannon. A spending freeze of this size is certainly concerning, but at the same time efficiency of spending is always a concern. If a more thorough audit and response can come from a freeze like this, wouldn't it be worth it? To have the same amount of money do more?
normally, i would agree, except that -- according to my understanding of this proposal -- military spending is not being frozen.
Given the doubling mandated by the COMPETES Act has yet to be funded, I think the research establishment needs to get used to the notion that the money from the federal government won't be there, or won't nearly be as reliable as it was in the past.
After all, we're now committing more to the financial bailout than has been spent on the Iraq War to date.
I believe Senator Obama when he says he wants to double research funding. I don't think he - or anyone else who was similarly sympathetic and in the Oval Office - to make it happen.
A bit of a skewed way of looking at the statements given by Brannon. A spending freeze of this size is certainly concerning, but at the same time efficiency of spending is always a concern. If a more thorough audit and response can come from a freeze like this, wouldn't it be worth it? To have the same amount of money do more?
Why would you need to freeze to perform the audit?
I would also note that "The purpose of the freeze is to evaluate each and every program, looking at which ones are worthwhile and which are a waste of taxpayer dollars" is pretty much codeword for we are going to play politics in decisions as to which scientific programs to fund. Bye, bye, any research that meddles that might anger the radical right.
The other target will be research proposals that do not have an obvious connection to practical use. Those old enough to remember (or political scholars who focus on Congress) Senator Proxmire's Golden Fleece Awards will remember that he often targeted research proposals that sounded ridiculous from reading a two-sentence description but typically had sound science supporting them (some animal-emitted methane study is a prime example).
The scientific community needs to do a better job of connecting their work to society (part of the reason behind the NSF's Broader Impact criteria), and the future political climate - especially in a McCain Administration - will demand more of this.
Not true. The Iraq war has cost three trillion dollars so far.
Your accounting on that figure, please. Adding up the supplementals for the war does not get to three trillion.
Sure it does.
From a review: "Readers may be surprised to learn just how difficult it was for Nobel Prize-winning economist Stiglitz and Kennedy School of Government professor Bilmes to dig up the actual and projected costs of the Iraq War for this thorough piece of accounting. Using "emergency" funds to pay for most of the war, the authors show that the White House has kept even Congress and the Comptroller General from getting a clear idea on the war's true costs. Other expenses are simply overlooked, one of the largest of which is the $600 billion going toward current and future health care for veterans. These numbers reveal stark truths: improvements in battlefield medicine have prevented many deaths, but seven soldiers are injured for every one that dies (in WWII, this ratio was 1.6 to one). Figuring in macroeconomic costs and interest -- the war has been funded with much borrowed money -- the cost rises to $4.5 trillion; add Afghanistan, and the bill tops $7 trillion. This shocking expose, capped with 18 proposals for reform, is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand how the war was financed, as well as what it means for troops on the ground and the nation's future."
And I'm sure there are future costs and expenses (and possible returns) that are not effectively counted in the costs of the bailout proposal. So I don't agree that the Iraq War is more expensive than this radical economic reshuffling.